I can't speak for the specific people involved in AI history, but in general, scientific pursuits do not work like that. But even people searching for the truth/progress may not hear ideas when put in aggressive and personally attacking words.
I've worked and met many scientist types. You'd think they'd be more open minded, but as a whole they share the same breadth of personalities as the general public. Some of open minded and flexible, others are dogmatic and aggressive.
A lot of the failures in science come down to the similar problems of people that other fields have. It's an endless war of personalities and politics rather than real science.
Seems about right. People have flaws, regardless of profession.
I wasn’t thinking only about sciences, but anything that is approached scientifically. I like to think I approach work in that way. But even still, the best ideas can get lost when packaged in an offensive demeanor. I’ve done my fair share of that unfortunately, even when genuinely trying to help. Especially online... in person what I say tends to be softened by nonverbal cues.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I do not believe it matters.
It is akin to convincing religious people that they are worshiping the wrong/a god.
People who do not want to listen, will not listen no matter how you communicate.
I can't speak for the specific people involved in AI history, but in general, scientific pursuits do not work like that. But even people searching for the truth/progress may not hear ideas when put in aggressive and personally attacking words.
Do you think it started with an aggressive tone, or is this what is the reported end result?
Often people only remember the aggressive end, not the 10 civil arguments before it.
Yes, I believe it started with an aggressive tone. The Wikipedia article has the papers referenced.
I've worked and met many scientist types. You'd think they'd be more open minded, but as a whole they share the same breadth of personalities as the general public. Some of open minded and flexible, others are dogmatic and aggressive.
A lot of the failures in science come down to the similar problems of people that other fields have. It's an endless war of personalities and politics rather than real science.
Seems about right. People have flaws, regardless of profession.
I wasn’t thinking only about sciences, but anything that is approached scientifically. I like to think I approach work in that way. But even still, the best ideas can get lost when packaged in an offensive demeanor. I’ve done my fair share of that unfortunately, even when genuinely trying to help. Especially online... in person what I say tends to be softened by nonverbal cues.